Negative Emissions Technologiesand Reliable Sequestration:

A Research AgendaStephen Pacala (Chair)Princeton University

Reduce Carbon Sources

• Energy efficiency • Low or zero-carbon fuel

sources

Enhance Carbon Sinks

• Coastal blue carbon• Terrestrial carbon

removal and sequestration

• Bioenergy with carbon capture and sequestration (BECCS)

• Direct air capture • Carbon

mineralization• Geologic

sequestration

Negative emissions technologies:remove carbon dioxide from atmosphere and store it on or underneath Earth’s surface

1. Reduce carbon pollution (i.e. 45Q tax credit in FUTURE Act)

Rationales for development and deployment of NETs

2. Reduce climate change

3. Economic competitiveness and technological leadership

How large is potential market for NETs likely to be?Or equivalently, how much carbon uptake is needed to meet Paris Agreement goals?

~10 GtCO2/y globally by midcentury

~20 GtCO2/y globally by the century’s end

UNEP, 2017

Rationales for development and deployment of NETs

3. Economic competitiveness and technological leadership

4. Control carbon pollution/climate change with less decrease in fossil fuel use

1. Reduce carbon pollution (i.e. 45Q tax credit in FUTURE Act)

2. Reduce climate change

For example…. Commercial Aviation

Option 1: Develop Cellulosic

Biofuels

Could be expensive and requires land to grow feedstock

Option 2: Capture and store 10 kg of

atmospheric CO2 with a NET for each gallon of fossil fuel consumed

If this cost $100/tCO2then the offset would cost an additional $1.00/gallon

Study Motivation• 2015 National Academies report recommends

R&D investment to improve methods of CDR and sequestration at scales that matter, in particular to:– minimize energy and materials consumption– identify and quantify risks– lower costs– develop reliable sequestration and monitoring

• Need for detailed research and development agenda to assess benefits, risks, and sustainable scale potential; and increase commercial viability

• Sponsors: DOE, NOAA, EPA, USGS, V. Kann Rasmussen Foundation, Incite Labs, NAS, Linden Trust for Conservation

Statement of Task

• Identify the most urgent unanswered scientific and technical questions needed to:– assess the benefits, risks, and sustainable scale potential for carbon

dioxide removal and sequestration approaches in terrestrial and coastal environments

– increase the commercial viability of carbon dioxide removal and sequestration

• Define the essential components of a research and development program and specific tasks required to answer these questions

• Estimate the costs and potential impacts of such a research and development program to the extent possible in the timeframe of the study

• Recommend ways to implement such a research and development program

• Stephen Pacala (NAS), Chair, Princeton University• Mahdi Al-Kaisi, Iowa State University• Mark Barteau (NAE), Texas A&M University• Erica Belmont, University of Wyoming• Sally Benson, Stanford University• Richard Birdsey, Woods Hole Research Center• Dane Boysen, Modular Chemical Inc.• Riley Duren, Jet Propulsion Laboratory• Charles Hopkinson, University of Georgia• Christopher Jones, Georgia Institute of Technology• Peter Kelemen (NAS), Columbia University• Annie Levasseur, École de Technologie Supérieure• Keith Paustian, Colorado State University• Jianwu (Jim) Tang, Marine Biological Laboratory• Tiffany Troxler, Florida International University• Michael Wara, Stanford University• Jennifer Wilcox, Worcester Polytechnic Institute

Committee MembersNational Academies Staff:

• Katie Thomas, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

• John Holmes, Board on Energy and Environmental Systems

• Yasmin Romitti, Board on Atmospheric Sciences and Climate

• Anne Linn, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources

• Emily Twigg, Ocean Studies Board

• Camilla Ables, Board on Agriculture and Natural Resources

• Anna Sberegaeva, Board on Chemical Sciences and Technology

• Information gathering workshops– Coastal Blue Carbon Approaches (July 2017)– Land Management Practices (Sept. 2017)– Bioenergy with Carbon Capture and Storage

Approaches (Oct. 2017)– Direct Air Capture (Oct. 2017)– Geologic Sequestration and Mineral

Carbonation Approaches (Nov. 2017)

Study Process

• Additional webinars and presentations• Committee meetings to develop report• Extensive external peer review

Direct air capture

Carbon mineralization

Geologic sequestration

Coastal blue carbon

Terrestrial carbon removal and

sequestration

Bioenergy with carbon capture and

sequestration (BECCS)

Negative Emissions Technologies

Four NETs are ready for large-scale deployment: • afforestation/reforestation• forest management• uptake and storage by agricultural

soils• bioenergy with carbon capture and

sequestration(BECCS)

However, additional research is likely to further reduce costs, increase efficiency and reduce unwanted impacts

• Safe and economical direct air capture or carbon mineralization would have essentially unlimited capacity to remove carbon− Direct air capture currently limited by

high cost− Carbon mineralization currently

limited by lack of fundamental understanding

• Blue carbon has capacity that is less than the other options, but potentially very low incremental cost given large co-benefits

Negative Emissions Technology

EstimatedCost

($/tCO2)L = 0-20

M =20-100H = >100

Upper Bound* for Safe* Potential Rate of CO2 Removal Possible Given

Current Technology and Understanding and at <$100/tCO2

(GtCO2/y) US Global

Coastal blue carbon L 0.02 0.13Afforestation/ Reforestation

L 0.15 1

Forest management L 0.1 1.5Agricultural soils L to M 0.25 3BECCS M 0.5 3.5-5.2

Direct air capture H 0 0Carbon mineralization

M to H unknown unknown

Total 1.02 9.13-10.83

* Upper bound assumes full adoption of agricultural soil conservation practices, forestry management practices, and waste biomass capture.

*Safe means without without large-scale land-use change that could adversely affect food availability and biodiversity.

Recommendation: The nation should launch a substantial research initiative to advance negative emissions technologies as soon as practicable:

(1) improve coastal blue carbon, afforestation/reforestation, changes in forest management, uptake and storage by agricultural soils, and BECCS to increase capacity and to reduce negative impacts and costs

(2) make rapid progress on direct air capture and carbon mineralization technologies, which are underexplored but would have essentially unlimited capacity if high costs and many unknowns could be overcome

(3) advance NET-enabling research on biofuels and carbon sequestration that should be undertaken anyway as part of an emissions mitigation research portfolio

15

• For each research effort:– budget estimates– potential sponsors– timespan – gaps addressed

Elements of Research Agenda• NET and NET-enabling research• Basic science and engineering research, development,

demonstration, deploymentIn many cases, research should be conducted in stages—funding will continue if certain milestones are met

The research plan is detailed and granular.

Research Agenda Highlights Uptake and Storage by Agricultural Soils

• $40-50M/y for 20 years for development of new agricultural varieties that increase carbon removal and storage

• Expand ARPA-E’s considerable investment in this area

• $11-14M/y for national agriculture soils monitoring system and experimental network improving agricultural soils processes

• Extend carbon storage practices to cropping systems where previous work has been insufficient

• Increase efficiency and reduce costs

Primary Limitation: Per-hectare rates of carbon uptake by agricultural soils

Research sponsors & performers:• USDA, NSF, DOE • Land-grant universities• Natural Resource Conservation

Service’s Conservation Innovation Grants

Research Agenda HighlightsAfforestation/Reforestation and Forest Management

• Frontier research on preservation of harvest wood• if successful, could provide very large benefit at very low cost

• Basic research at $2.4 M/y for 3 years for landfill designs for achieving lowest possible rate of wood decomposition and integrated assessment of net greenhouse balance, costs, and required land, including the implications for worldwide consumption of wood products and their lifecycle emissions

• $3 M/y for 3 years for demonstration projects to improve the collection and disposal of wood products after use and for preserving harvested wood in different environments

Research sponsors and performers: • USFS has a central role in furthering

research and funding• in partnership with USDA, NSF, and EPA

Research investment: Low

Research Agenda HighlightsAfforestation/Reforestation

Forest ManagementBECCS

• Estimate how much land use change will occur elsewhere in world in response to

• diversion of land to afforestation/reforestation

• BECCS dedicated energy crops• reduced wood harvest

• Might allow increased carbon removal and if not, might reduce probability of making grave policy error

• Investment is not larger because committee believes that genuine understanding in this area is likely to improve only slowly.

Primary Limitation: Competition with food and biodiversity for land

Research sponsors & performers:• Coordinated, cross-agency effort

at USDA, DOE, EPA• Research conducted by academic

researchers and national laboratories

• National laboratories should develop and curate publicly-accessible IAM platforms that can be leveraged by academic researchers

• Coordinate international IAM efforts

$3.7-14M/y for 10 years for IAMs to improve humanity’s understanding of land-area constraint facing these NETs

Research Agenda HighlightsBECCS-to-Fuels with Biochar

$40-103 M/y for 10 years• Research biochar permanence in soil and

impact on crop productivity to determine its long-term value as a soil amendment and viability for carbon sequestration

• Develop conversion pathways that are both profitable from fuel production and carbon negative through co-production of large quantities of sequestered biochar

Primary Limitations: • Uncertainty about

biochar• Challenging to achieve

net negative GHG emissions

Research sponsors & performers:• DOE, USDA, national labs

research and applied research• Private industry, start-up

companies lead pilot and demonstration scale development

• National labs operate pilot scale testing facilities

Research Agenda HighlightsDirect Air Capture

National Direct Air Capture Test Center• facilitate research• conduct measurements of

each entity’s technology using common basis for comparison

• disseminate public information while protecting intellectual property

Primary Limitation: Cost is higher than economic demand

Research Stages1. Search for better materials and component

designs with many $1 million efforts ($23-35M/y for 10 years)

2. Scale up new materials, components so they could be produced at scale necessary for pilot plant ($13-25M/y for 10 years)

3. Build and evaluate $20M/project pilot plants up to 1,000 tCO2/y ($30-60M/y for 10 years)

4. Final scale-up to >10,000 tCO2/y at $100M/project ($115-120M/y for 10 years)

Research sponsors & performers:• Cooperating and competing ecosystem of

researchers, start-ups • DOE Office of Fossil Energy, NETL manage

research, development, demonstration projects

Research Agenda HighlightsCarbon Mineralization

• Basic research on kinetics of carbon capture by minerals ($5.5M/y for 10 years)

• Basic research on rock mechanics, numerical modeling, and field studies to advance understanding of feedbacks between reaction and fluid flow for in situ applications ($17M/y for 10 years)

• Sequestration-only mitigation project: medium-scale injection of CO2 into a basalt formation to provide alternative to saline aquifer storage ($10M/y for 10 years)

Primary Limitation: Lack of fundamental understanding

Research sponsors & performers:• DOE: Basic Energy Sciences

Program and Office of Fossil Energy, combined with SubTERinitiative

• NSF• USGS• University research

Credit: Lamont-Doherty Earth Observatory

Research Agenda HighlightsGeologic Storage of Carbon Dioxide

Illinois Basin - Decatur Project

− Globally scaling up CO2 sequestration in deep geological formations is enormous task:

• >100-fold scale-up from current sequestration operations

− Research needed to assess risks, select sites, provide assurances that sequestration will be safe and effective

Primary Limitation: Practical barriers to scale up

• $50M/y reduce risks of induced seismicity

• $45M/y increase efficiency and accuracy of site characterization and selection

• $20M/y research ways to manage risk of leakage of CO2 to atmosphere and groundwater

• $1M/y establish best practices for community engagement, rules of practice, regulation guidelines

Research sponsors & performers:• DOE: research on trapping

mechanisms; multi-scale, multi-physics modeling of fate and transport of CO2 in subsurface

• NSF: engage university research on Earth processes relevant to sequestration

• EPA: support development of reliable approaches regarding contamination sequestration sites

• USGS and BLM: further scale-up of geological sequestration

• States, local governments, corporations, and countries now make or plan large investments in NETs (e.g. ~30% of planned emissions reductions). – Advances in NETs will create jobs and benefit US economy,

especially if intellectual property is held by US companies.

Rationale for Research Investment

• Unlike wind, solar and unconventional gas, NETs have not yet received public investment at a scale consistent with: – need for NETs that can solve

substantial fraction of climate problem

– possible magnitude of return to US economy

Thank you!

For more information and to subscribe for updates:http://nas-sites.org/dels/studies/cdr/

26

Join the conversation on Twitter: #CarbonRemoval